Friday, May 20, 2011

Video: Netanyahu lectures Obama on why Israel’s 1967 borders are indefensible

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu lectures Barack Obama about Israel's security. Netanyahu mentioned the refugee problem and the Muslims failure to accept the Palestinian refugees into their much larger lands, and yet it was the Muslims who put those poor people in the refugee camps to use them like pawns to destroy Israel.


Friday, May 13, 2011

John Fea's Blog, The Way of Improvement Leads Home

John Fea has a new book out called, Was America Founded as a Christian Nation: A Historical Introduction, where he attempts to discard the Christian Nation Thesis. I say this without reading the book because he uses his blog, and quotes secularists, to attack the thesis any chance he can. The only valid position that can be made for the Christian Nation thesis is a governmental one. And that position is clearly established. From public institutions to State Government, Christianity was endorsed. I have no problem with an alternative view, except when the other side fails to sufficiently rebuke, or even answer, the opposite position.

Fea subsequently has made some allusions to David Barton's interview--seven parts no less--with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. This post he critiques the Treaty of Tripoli--a secularists dream, however a sad example of how to distort a government document. Secularists turn upside down Article 11 of this treaty the same if not more than anything David Barton has done. Here is Article 11:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Fea responds "I think Barton has a point here." Secularists--everywhere you see the quote--purposely discard the semi-colon and subvert the entire meaning of the Article, and Fea retorts, "I think Barton has a pont here?" If secularists distorted the English grammer in the Gettysburg Address or Declaration of Independence would Fea remark, " I think Barton has a point here?" Secularists--minus Fea--distort Article 11 on purpose with the goal to deceive. There should be a firm rebuke when this happens. God forbid I ever give up this fight! This misportrayal is nearly on every secularist website that attacks the Christian Nation thesis.

Fea later on in the post writes "He spends all this time showing how people take the Treaty of Tripoli out of context by not reading the complete Christian nation clause, but when it comes to the John Adams quote mentioned in my previous post, he is guilty of the same charge." But there is a vast difference between Barton's failure to give the proper context of a personal letter that has nothing to do with whether we were formed a Christian Nation, and the butchered context of a government document.

Secularists fight with such fury and passion to uphold their position, the fact that Congress and the State Constitutions endorsed Christianity appear to be a myth. Can't we post the framers referring us a Christian Nation and be done with it?
No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. The American population is entirely Christian; and with us Christianity and religion are identical. It would be strange indeed if, with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it and exhibit relations with it. [bold face mine]
--Chief Justice John Marshall to Jasper Adams, May 9th, 1833
[W]e can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning during the sessions in order to open the meeting with prayer.
--Elias Boudinot, Acting President of the United States 1782-83, Chairman of the House Committee which Drafted the Bill of Rights. Member of the Continental Congress (1778-79, 1781-84). The Life, Public Service, Addresses, and Letters of Elias Boudinot, LL.D., President of the Continental Congress, J. J. Boudinot, editor (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1896), Vol. I, p. 21, to the First Provincial Congress of New Jersey.
I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be without effect. [bold face mine]
--John Adams, The man who signed the Treaty of Tripoli, Inaugural Address, In the City of Philadelphia, Saturday, March 4, 1797.
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
--John Jay, Acting President of the United States 1777-78. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833), Vol. II, p. 376, to John Murray Jr. on October 12, 1816

Here is the State of Virginia endorsing Christianity in its State Government:
Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical. [bold face mine]
--VA Act for Religious Freedom
DE, NH, NY, MD, CT, NJ, VA, VT, MA, and NC. specifically endorsed Christianity well into the 19th century.

Supporting Israel dangerous in California

Supporting Israel around tolerant liberals isn't so safe after all. Liberals show their loving tolerance by threatening the safety of California candidate Craig Huey (R) vying for Rep. Jane Harman's 36th District seat, who had the audacity to speak out for Israel. It's nothing unusual. Liberals are experts at tolerance. The district includes a most lovely tolerant place called: Venice:
At the very end, what basically happened was my wife and I went out towards the back, and the campaign managers of some of the other candidates came up to us and said, 'You better have security take you outside because it's just not safe for you to go out to your car by yourself," he explains.

Thursday, May 5, 2011

David Barton Appearing On The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

From watching the video, it looks like Jon Stewart may have slightly changed his views about how secularists have attempted to eliminate the Christian Nation thesis. It wasn't as secular as liberals claim. I would add from the evidence we have, the United States was formed--not now--a Christian nation in every part of its structure--the courts, government departments (see John Adams' Inaugural Address) and religiously. However, I disagree with David on two points he makes; one, Unitarians in the 18th century did not believe in the Trinity, two, no person, city, state, or government should have the freedom to practice Sharia Law. By reading the koran and hadith, a high schooler could see it's true intent. The Founding Fathers would outlaw Islam--in light of the Canada Act--because it violates the Laws of Nature's God; with the goal to enslave the planet.

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Naturalization, and Barack Obama's Eligibility To Be President

Barack Obama's eligibility has been debated for several years now, with Donald Trump taking the lead, mandating the President release his long form birth certificate. It appears Obama defeated Donald Trump and the birthers, knowing the issue would be marginalized once he released it. From the Constitution, the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, the 14th Amendment, and Vattel's Law of Nations--quoted heavily by the framers--it looks like Barack Obama is ineligible to be President.

That Obama was born in the USA is not the issue. Obama is not eligible to be President because he was never naturalized by taking the oath of allegiance as the Constitution and Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 demand. Because Obama's dad was a British subject, the founders mandated an oath to the Constitution against any "foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject" by Naturalization, which Obama never did. Obama is still a dual citizen with--due to his dad--partial allegiance to the Crown. Only a person with both parents that are "Naturalized" can be President. If being born here was legit, Al Zawairi could cross the border, impregnate a woman, and that son could be President.

The Oath of Allegiance was very important to the Founding Fathers, given political exiles from France and Europe arriving here after the French Revolution. The Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, emphasized the importance of the Oath:
Article II of the Constitution says a non-citizen cannot legally enter the United StatesFirst, he shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the Supreme, Superior, District, or Circuit Court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the Ohio River, or a Circuit or District Court of the United States, three years at least before his admission, that it was, bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whereof such alien may at that time be a citizen or subject.. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States. [bold face mine]
--The Naturalization Act of 1795, FREDERICK AUGUSTUS MUHLENBERG, Speaker of the House of Representatives. JOHN ADAMS, Vice-President of the United States, And President of the Senate. APPROVED, January the 29th, 1795: GEORGE WASHINGTON, President of the United States.
The framers echoed Vattel, who lays out "Natural Born Citizen" is born here and from two Naturalized citizens:
E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or, Principles of the Law of Nature 144 (1792) Law of Nations (1758)

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. Vatt. Law Nat. bk. 1, c. 19, § 212. ‘The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. * * * The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction.’
Mario Apuzzo Esq shows the difference between Natural born and "Natural Born Citizen."
The Framers of the Constitution, at the time of their birth, were also British Citizens and that is why the Framers declared that, while they and so many others were technically (by law) Citizens of the United States, they themselves were not “natural born Citizens.” Hence, they included a grandfather clause in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution: No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President.” In other words, even if you were not a “natural born Citizen,” if you were a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, you were eligible to be President. The inclusion of the grandfather clause proves that the Framers saw a clear distinction between “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen.” If there were no distinction, there would not have been a need to include the clause, for the term “Citizen” would have sufficed when spelling out the qualifications to be President. The Framers recognized that a person who was just a “Citizen” could still have divided loyalties and allegiance between the United States and some other country. It is also important to note that many of the then living population were subjects of England or some other country, either having been born in that foreign country or born to foreign parents or both. The Framers did not exclude these individuals from being President, provided that they were citizens at the time that the Constitution was adopted. The laws of the individual States would have determined citizenship at this time. This group would eventually die out and then the “natural born Citizen” requirement would prevail and provide further security for the new nation, for the question of divided loyalties would be over.
I am neither a democrat or republican. I am as Benjamin Rush--a Christocrat. However, what a tragic state of affairs this nation is in. Our people have elected a man ineligible to be President. The question to the founding fathers would be "what about Joe Biden?" Would the framers allow him eligible to assume the Presidency?

Monday, May 2, 2011

Man arrested for reading Bible in public!

As this blog has shown quite easily, the United States was formed a Christian Nation; politically, governmentally, and religiously. However, not only does our government promote special rights to Muslims--in fear of a riot--the government; local, state, and federal, persecutes Christians. Christians, as the above video indicates, are getting arrested for preaching the Bible on public property for "impeding a business." These pastors weren't even in line at the DMV! How can speaking 50 feet away from the dmv impede a business?

Moreover, why would a person need a permit to preach on public property? The right to preach is granted in the First Amendment.